Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[River Jordan]

First, I think your assertions that I am being dishonest is more than bit overstated.

No, it is there for all to see in this thread. You started with one claim ("Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity") and after it was demonstrated to be false, you tried to move the goalposts to "cows becoming whales".

The fact remains, your original claim is wrong.

We are exploring the understanding of "evolution/Darwinian evolution" and how that relates to modern medicine.

Yes, and your argument has been demonstrated to be wrong.

My contention is that understanding how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is very different from the assertion that such a process can be reversed over millions of years to explain all forms of life by the same gradual process.

And thus you have moved the goalposts. We can talk about universal common ancestry if you like.

Again, there are microbiologists who are involved in such medical work that do not agree with such a theory...nor is it necessary for modern medicine.

Again...so what? There are degreed cosmologists who don't agree that the earth orbits the sun. Do you find that to be a compelling argument for geocentrism?

There is nothing "dishonest" here. Again, the coding in DNA is so incredibly complex that even Bill Gates said it exceeds any type of computer programming we have today...on a nano scale. Programs infer a programmer and many microbiologists (whether in medicine or other fields) look at the same evidence you see and do not ascribe to Darwinian evolution. You should learn to accept disagreement without accusing people of lying.

I have not merely accused you of unethical behavior. I have demonstrated precisely how you did so. Your posts in this thread serve as documentation of how you tried to move the goalposts.

Yes you provided supposed examples that you THINK can be reversed and account for all life over millions of years. I responded with an article showing scholars who disagree with your belief on this matter. This is not at all about "moving the goalposts." This is about differing interpretations when various people look at the same information. I have been very clearly trying to exhibit that many scholars do not see your petri dish examples of bacteria as providing results that validate the Darwinian hypothesis.

And you persist in this unethical behavior. Your original argument ("There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation") was shown to be false by the presentation of observed examples of the evolution of novel genetic sequences that produced new traits, which conferred a selective advantage. Yet rather than concede this point, you instead try and dismiss the evidence because it's not an explanation of universal common descent.

As you may or may not know, this entire naturalistic debate began back with Friedrich Wohler's discovery that he could create urea with non-organic substances. Thus, it was assumed that because organic life did not carry any mysterious vitality to it, that all things could be explained through naturalistic means. This led to theories of life that were based in protoplasm and life just naturally arose from basic chemicals, to the idea that all that was needed was organic molecules which enclosed proteins. Naturalism has been ASSUMED ever since it was understood that the building blocks of life are based in common substances and new theories continually are derived (and proven false) as technology increases. Now we know cells are incredibly complex and DNA is essentially a ridiculously in-depth computer program. Yet because the theory has been assumed for so long, it is continually perpetuated...no matter how complex and unique cells and living organisms are discovered to be.

Irrelevant to the fact that all your arguments against evolutionary theory in this thread have been shown to be false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

Those are all facts that directly contradict what you have tried to argue in this thread.

In sum, it is fine if you want to accept naturalism and see the bacteria in a petri dish dying because they aren't suited for an environment while the others reproduce as rationale for cows into whales. However, I am simply saying that one does not mandate the other. The petri dish does not say all you are claiming it says. You are inferring things that NOT ALL SCHOLARS infer. I am not lying and neither am I moving goal posts. I am disagreeing with you..and I think I have valid reasons to do so.

Again you persist in this unethical behavior. I would advise against doing such a thing, especially in a forum where your words are there for everyone to see.

 

[babylonisfalling]

Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered




So are these dinosaurs now in the "bird kind"? :huh:

It's been thought for a while now that dinosaurs were related to birds

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Some dinosaurs were thought to be because of the skeletal similarities. T-rex could certainly be seen as a very large chicken with scales instead of feathers. They also laid eggs over which they brooded and there's evidence to suggest that many were warm blooded. Some even flew.

 

[Tex]

Some dinosaurs were thought to be because of the skeletal similarities. T-rex could certainly be seen as a very large chicken with scales instead of feathers. They also laid eggs over which they brooded and there's evidence to suggest that many were warm blooded. Some even flew.

That is something that is often forgotten: dinosaurs are often warmblooded. They seem to be the link between warm blooded birds and cold blooded reptiles. Giant herbivores likely were cold blooded because it would be hard to support the metabolism of a creature that large without gobbs of energy spent on heating, not to mention the middle would be much, much hotter than the skin if warmblooded. Velicosiraptors, on the other hand, needed to be warmblooded because of the necessary demands of their circulatory system. Their heart wouldn't be able to take the position of their head and a decent mile time wihtout the extra engery spent on it.

 

[Wormwood]

No, it is there for all to see in this thread. You started with one claim ("Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity") and after it was demonstrated to be false, you tried to move the goalposts to "cows becoming whales".

The fact remains, your original claim is wrong.

I started with this claim and maintain it. I think the issue here is more that you have difficulty following other people's logic that does not match your own. This has nothing to do with deceit or moving goal posts. It has to do with how you define words and your preconceived assumptions.

You assume that what I mean by "complexity" is any function of an organism that is different than what it had before. Complexity refers to many parts working together in various complicated ways. I do not see your petri dish experiment as bacteria developing more complex systems. Does this make sense to you? If I kill slower bugs that cannot scurry away from me in time and leave the faster bugs..while the faster bugs may have fast bug babies...I have not made the bugs more "complex." I have merely highlighted and perpetuated an existing trait.

And you persist in this unethical behavior. Your original argument ("There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation") was shown to be false by the presentation of observed examples of the evolution of novel genetic sequences that produced new traits, which conferred a selective advantage. Yet rather than concede this point, you instead try and dismiss the evidence because it's not an explanation of universal common descent.

Unethical behavior...sigh. Anyway, on with the information. It is not "shown false." (and I qualified the above statement, mind you) In fact, Robert Marks of Baylor University has shown that undirected mutation and selection actually depends on multiple sources of active information. He declares that computers do not create information any more than iPods create music. DNA is essentially a program executing its function. We do not see more complex functions or programs at work through the processes you are describing. To put it another way, you are arguing that natural selection in the bacteria is causing the bacteria to reproduce to become more suited to their environment. Those more suited bacteria reproduce and create stronger and more "evolved" bacteria. The problem I see is that the "advantage" of some bacteria is intrinsic. The selective advantage comes from the that which is intrinsic in the bacteria and not as a result of its advancing beyond itself as Darwinian evolution requires.

Looking more specifically at the "point" you feel I should concede, that there is nothing "new" being produced in these bacteria. The bacteria grow immune to antibiotics through processes of mutation, conjugation, transformation and transduction. See http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/1/25.full Mutations never occur based on the need of the organism for new information to survive or thrive. Often the mutations are more destructive than helpful. There is no indication that mutations in bacteria are bringing advancements in the organism. Conjugation is merely the transference of already existing material from one bacteria to the next. Transformation is similar in that the bacteria simply absorbs existing genetic material. Finally, transduction is where existing genetic material is transported by a virus. This does not result in a transformation of the bacteria or a new species of bacteria.

An important feature contributing to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance is the ability of the resistance genes to move into other bacteria by a variety of genetic means. One transfer mechanism is by plasmids, extrachromosomal elements that can move genes between bacteria of vastly different evolutionary backgrounds, including transfer between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. There are bacteriophages that can deliver chromosomal- or plasmid-associated resistance genes to a new bacterial host. Finally, naked DNA, released from dead bacteria, can be picked up and incorporated into new strains. The last mechanism, called transformation, is documented in the emergence of resistance among pneumococci and Haemophilus spp. Not all organisms have all three mechanisms, but each one helps to amplify the resistance determinant within the microbial world.2 In the cell, resistance genes can move from one DNA vehicle to another, e.g. from a plasmid to the chromosome, if they are part of a smaller piece of DNA, called a transposon. The microbial environment has carried these various gene distribution systems over evolutionary periods, using them to defend itself against threats to its existence, such as those posed by antibiotics.2

There is nothing "new" here. Notice the words "move genes," "transfer," "deliver," "picked up and incorporated." There is nothing about "creating" new genes or information, which IS and ALWAYS HAS been my point! Its the same material that has always existed in legions of various bacteria that is being circulated around from one to the other, as they have always done. Frozen bacteria from 100 years ago have traits that make them immune to modern antibiotics. It is not an acquired or newly evolved trait.

Look, if you want to believe that if you shuffle and replicate a deck of playing cards enough times, they will eventually turn into a stack of hundred dollar bills, go ahead. These tests show nothing of the sort. What we see in the petri dish is not a sufficient evolutionary process that it could be reversed over millions of years to explain Darwin's theory.

 

[aspen]

but what about mutations, wormwood? Are you simply saying that mutations only change traits, not species? I do not really agree with that if this is what you are saying. girraffes share a common ancestry with antelopes, but they are a distinct species.

 

[River Jordan]

I started with this claim and maintain it.

You can maintain it all you like, but the demonstrable fact is, you're wrong. It is a directly and repeatedly observed fact that mutations can generate new traits that confer a selective advantage.

I think the issue here is more that you have difficulty following other people's logic that does not match your own. This has nothing to do with deceit or moving goal posts. It has to do with how you define words and your preconceived assumptions.

No, this is a matter of science and fact. Remember, you wanted me to merely explain to you why I thought your arguments were wrong and not get into anything about where you got those arguments, whether or not you have the necessary expertise in biology to differentiate a false argument from a true one, or anything outside of the facts of the matter.

And the fact is, the data directly contradicts your arguments. Whether or not you accept this reality is irrelevant.

You assume that what I mean by "complexity" is any function of an organism that is different than what it had before. Complexity refers to many parts working together in various complicated ways. I do not see your petri dish experiment as bacteria developing more complex systems. Does this make sense to you? If I kill slower bugs that cannot scurry away from me in time and leave the faster bugs..while the faster bugs may have fast bug babies...I have not made the bugs more "complex." I have merely highlighted and perpetuated an existing trait.

Either you weren't paying close attention to the example I provided, or you didn't understand it. Again, the experiment I outlined involved culturing a population that was descended from a single individual that was susceptible to the antibiotic (that's what a "clonal colony" is). Thus, the only way the resistant population could have acquired the resistance to the antibiotic is if the trait was newly evolved. And not only that, we can sequence the parent and the evolved strain and identify the exact genetic changes that led to the new trait.

So again, the data and the facts directly contradict your argument.

It is not "shown false." (and I qualified the above statement, mind you) In fact, Robert Marks of Baylor University has shown that undirected mutation and selection actually depends on multiple sources of active information. He declares that computers do not create information any more than iPods create music. DNA is essentially a program executing its function.

All that is irrelevant to the observed facts, i.e., that the evolution of novel genetic sequences that result in new traits, which confer a selective advantage is a directly and repeatedly observed fact.

We do not see more complex functions or programs at work through the processes you are describing.

Baseless hand-waving. Go back to the papers I linked to and the experiment I described, then identify which populations were "more complex", complete with a description of how you measured "complexity".

To put it another way, you are arguing that natural selection in the bacteria is causing the bacteria to reproduce to become more suited to their environment. Those more suited bacteria reproduce and create stronger and more "evolved" bacteria. The problem I see is that the "advantage" of some bacteria is intrinsic. The selective advantage comes from the that which is intrinsic in the bacteria and not as a result of its advancing beyond itself as Darwinian evolution requires.

Completely incorrect, as described above. The examples I provided are the observed evolution of new traits that were not present in the original population.

Looking more specifically at the "point" you feel I should concede, that there is nothing "new" being produced in these bacteria.

Directly contradicted by the facts. That you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant.

The bacteria grow immune to antibiotics through processes of mutation, conjugation, transformation and transduction. See http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/1/25.full Mutations never occur based on the need of the organism for new information to survive or thrive. Often the mutations are more destructive than helpful. There is no indication that mutations in bacteria are bringing advancements in the organism. Conjugation is merely the transference of already existing material from one bacteria to the next. Transformation is similar in that the bacteria simply absorbs existing genetic material. Finally, transduction is where existing genetic material is transported by a virus. This does not result in a transformation of the bacteria or a new species of bacteria. There is nothing "new" here. Its the same material that has always existed in bacteria that is being circulated around in the species, as they have always done. Frozen bacteria from 100 years ago have traits that make them immune to modern antibiotics.

Again, your argument is directly contradicted by the data. Go back to the experiment I outlined where the genetic sequence that conferred resistance was not in the parental strain. Is the sequence that showed up in the evolved strain "new"? If not, where was it before?

Look, if you want to believe that if you shuffle and replicate a deck of playing cards enough times, they will eventually lead to a stack of hundred dollar bills, go ahead. These tests show nothing of the sort. What we see in the petri dish is not a sufficient evolutionary process that it could be reversed to explain Darwin's theory.

More empty hand-waving. The fact remains all your arguments against evolutionary theory in this thread have been shown to be false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

 

[Wormwood]

These changes in frequency of certain genes in a population have not resulted in the production of new species, even though enough time has elapsed for quite dramatic changes to be observed in bacteria. Assuming a conservative estimate of one hour for each “generation” of bacteria then, since the introduction of antibiotics, 500 000 generations have been produced. This is equivalent to about 10 million years for humans, during which time people have supposedly evolved from primate ancestors. Yet the antibiotic resistant bacteria are still the same species.


Both antibiotic resistance in bacteria and warfarin resistance in rodents provide examples of selection that occurs due to a change in the environment. Study of these phenomena shows us the nature and extent of the effects of differential survival. The increase in frequency of resistance is a good example of natural selection. But this study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.

-Dr Marc Surtees

 

[KingJ]

All dinosaurs had feathers and spoke Portuguese.

No!!! they spoke slytherin. Havn't you watched Harry Potter????

Nothing.

The "bird kind" had wings and could fly. If dinosaurs had wings and could fly then they defintelty were of the "bird kind". That's probably why bats are listed as birds in the Bible.

So what's your point?

Whatever you think it is.

Your intentions are obvious to anyone reading the '''innocent OP'' + simply post # 6 and # 8....

Seems you have not changed much.

 

[River Jordan]

These changes in frequency of certain genes in a population have not resulted in the production of new species

Are you moving the goalposts again? Was that what you originally claimed? And again, I have provided you with directly observed examples of the evolution of new species.

But this study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.

Yes, you are moving the goalposts again. But I'm not supposed to wonder why you persist in such unethical behavior. So sticking to the facts...

The fact remains all your arguments against evolutionary theory in this thread have been shown to be false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

 

[Tex]

At the very least, over time natural selection and sexual reproduction would make prey more difficult to catch, then predators would adapt to the difficulty, then prey would change again, then predators would change again. This shift every 1000 years or so would allow for a slightly different creature to exist. After 6000 years (estimated creation of the Earth by young earths), deer would not be the same, cheetah's would not be the same, dogs would not be the same, even people would not be the same. Evolution exists, regardless of when the Earth was made. In fact, within 6000 years, if one set of deer evolved one way and another set (because of different predators) evolved another, they would certainly be separate kinds of deer.

Evolution is a simply cause and effect scenario involving species. Nothing more. And cause and effect certainly exists.

On the broader scale, there is still nothing evil about God creating the universe longer than 144 hours. Sure, the bible says 6 days, but is that the purpose of the creation account? No. There is no benefit to be had from the details of how God created the universe. The benefit from a creation account is that God is the Lord of the physical world as well as the spiritual world. The physical world is ordered. There is a natural hierarchy, and we're at the top. Everything that is, is made to glorify God and is very good.

If you take from Genesis 1 more than the above, you have extracted from scripture more than scripture communicates.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Tex, do you have any specific scientific evidence that shows us that changes over time create a "different creature to exist", as opposed to .. say.. variations within a kind?


Also, what evidence can you provide that "the above" is what scripture "communicates"? As far as I can see God "ordered" creatures and plants in a set of "kinds" that reproduce "according to their various kinds". This is exactly what we see today. Don't we?

 

[Tex]

I thought science was the enemy? But yes, there is plenty scientific data out there that shows the movement of a species as it continues to adapt to it's environment. Just google. And no, I'm not doing it for you.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I thought science was the enemy? But yes, there is plenty scientific data out there that shows the movement of a species as it continues to adapt to it's environment. Just google. And no, I'm not doing it for you.

In other words, what you thought was wrong, and you can't even provide something that should be very easy for you to provide. I guess all you have to do is assert?

 

[Tex]

In other words, what you thought was wrong, and you can't even provide something that should be very easy for you to provide. I guess all you have to do is assert?

That's not what I said. I said for you to google the info because I don't want to spend the time on it. I have no obligation to prove evolution true. And nevertheless, it's true regardless of your belief.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That's not what I said. I said for you to google the info because I don't want to spend the time on it. I have no obligation to prove evolution true. And nevertheless, it's true regardless of your belief.

Google doesn't prove anything, much less evolution. The problem here is classic, you enlisting science as if any opposition to the lies of evolution cannot possibly be based on science. You draw lines that you have no right to because science is an examination of the evidence, and doesn't necessarily prove or disprove evolution. The conclusions we draw from science are belief systems, not science itself, for we tend to emphasize evidence that seems to support our beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts it, and science provides PLENTY of evidence that destroys the myth of evolution. It's more of a religion for you people in your hostility toward the truth that God created the heavens and the earth, the animals according to kind, and man in his own image. You materialists have become dogmatic about evolution, browbeating and shouting down and ostracizing anyone who disagrees, something that was uncovered in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled".

So if your best defense is "google it" you've demonstrated that I'm correct, that you believe evolution dogmatically and do everything you can to shield it from intellectual scrutiny.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well said Vale!

And Tex.. you cannot prove evolution is true, unless you want to assert that prejudice is proof.

 

[Tex]

Google doesn't prove anything, much less evolution. The problem here is classic, you enlisting science as if any opposition to the lies of evolution cannot possibly be based on science. You draw lines that you have no right to because science is an examination of the evidence, and doesn't necessarily prove or disprove evolution. The conclusions we draw from science are belief systems, not science itself, for we tend to emphasize evidence that seems to support our beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts it, and science provides PLENTY of evidence that destroys the myth of evolution. It's more of a religion for you people in your hostility toward the truth that God created the heavens and the earth, the animals according to kind, and man in his own image. You materialists have become dogmatic about evolution, browbeating and shouting down and ostracizing anyone who disagrees, something that was uncovered in Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled".

So if your best defense is "google it" you've demonstrated that I'm correct, that you believe evolution dogmatically and do everything you can to shield it from intellectual scrutiny.

That isn't my defense. I'm refusing to put up a defense. If yall want to know defenses, go elsewhere. I think it is horribly obvious. If you don't, that's fine, but I don't have any obligation to go and find all the data for you. Go to google yourself, because I refuse. There is no point in attempting a debate with those who are so deep-seated in ignorance; to reason with you is unreasonable.

Also, don't call me a "you people". It's disrespectful. You should act better.

I'm not a materialist, but instead I've been arguing that angels and demons are so non-material that most of you haven't been able to grasp the concept.

Evolution is not a religion. Unless you want theory of relativity and gravity to also be religions. Then we'll need a really broad definition so we can keep calling Christianity a religion.

Yes, science works by induction, which means principles are inferred from a limited data set. Congratulations. You won a cookie. The principles are very often correct, and evolution is the most likely principle.

Finally, I have never ostracized, browbeaten, or shouted at anyone who believes contrary. I'll say you're wrong, sure, but you do the same. Stop lumping me in with another group, Vale. You should act better. You seem to take any philosophical/religious difference as a personal attack and then only operate off of emotion. You should work on this flaw. This is not the first time you've done this to me personally, and I've only been on this forum a few weeks. You're quickness to stereotype is offensive.

Well said Vale!

And Tex.. you cannot prove evolution is true, unless you want to assert that prejudice is proof.

I'm not prejudiced. And evolution is true. If you would like the information, you may google for it. I refuse to provide it for you.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm not prejudiced. And evolution is true. If you would like the information, you may google for it. I refuse to provide it for you.

Well the very fact that you merely presume that my stance in this matter is based on a lack of googling indicates that you are prejudiced!

 

[Tex]

I do not presume that your stance in the matter is based on a lack of googling. You asked for evidence. The evidence can be accessed via google. That's all I said. That's all I meant. I think your stance on the matter is based on a poor interpretation of scripture, and you'll ignore anything else for the sake of your interpretation.